Jump to content

💓 DAWN OF CHROMATICA 💓

Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
movie

ROMA Netflix Movie


warioaddams

Featured Posts

Oriane
1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Both films are filled to the brim with meaning. You just have to reconstruct it, it's not just given to you on a platter. I get that that might be frustrating for some people, but for others (like me) it's refreshing and inviting. I quite like to be an active interpreter and that's why I think most mass media films are so quintessentially dull: they don't require anything but just a passive taking in of whatever the director slapped on screen. That, to me, is not art.

Still, you stay for three hours in front of the screen waiting for the end to come. I think that cinema, literature, video games, even music are different in that sense from other forms of art. It's also a form of entertainment. You can make a painting beautiful, contemplative, really meaningful, aesthetically brilliant, I think it's the perfect medium for it. But a movie or a book, they have a definite length, you can't escape them (unless you press stop or leave the theatre but I make a point of always sticking until the end whether I like it or not). Entertainment is the other priority here, and it's easy to fall into your artistry or forgetting that you have to keep the public in mind, that you have to share your ideas with them. It's easy to fall in the other category too and make simple entertainment rather than art (unfortunately these movies are the most popular in theatres). It's more than possible to combine both, but it takes talent and work. Not that Alfonso Cuaron or Terrence Malick are not talented, but they kind of let themselves be impressed by the beauty of the shots and forgot about the rest.

You popped my heart seams, all my bubble dreams
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Didymus
23 minutes ago, Oriane said:

Still, you stay for three hours in front of the screen waiting for the end to come. I think that cinema, literature, video games, even music are different in that sense from other forms of art. It's also a form of entertainment. You can make a painting beautiful, contemplative, really meaningful, aesthetically brilliant, I think it's the perfect medium for it. But a movie or a book, they have a definite length, you can't escape them (unless you press stop or leave the theatre but I make a point of always sticking until the end whether I like it or not). Entertainment is the other priority here, and it's easy to fall into your artistry or forgetting that you have to keep the public in mind, that you have to share your ideas with them. It's easy to fall in the other category too and make simple entertainment rather than art (unfortunately these movies are the most popular in theatres). It's more than possible to combine both, but it takes talent and work. Not that Alfonso Cuaron or Terrence Malick are not talented, but they kind of let themselves be impressed by the beauty of the shots and forgot about the rest.

Well, then it's just different goals of the artist and/or the public then imo. There's clearly an audience for their films, it might be a very small one, but it does exist and I don't see why directors can't make films for them :nick:

I also don't really agree with the talent/work thing. I don't really think that's appropriate. It's such a cliché that "artsy fartsy" things don't require a lot of work and are more spontaneous and I've never found it convincing. Not saying it takes more talent/work to make those movies, but I definitely don't think you can generalize and say it's an either/or situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neight Shayde

This is in my top 6 of 2018 so far. It brought back the old, post-WWII italian films that i'm familiar with, especially Antonioni, and Fellini who also coincidentally has a film with the same title.

It's not as effective as a form of "Slow Cinema" like the tarkovskys and the recent lav diaz films, but it still succeeds in sending its own message beautifully in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

elijahfan

I love Alfonso Cuarón and this is just a gorgeous-looking film, very reminiscent of his early work. But I'm not gonna lie, that was a snooze fest..... I know this is basically made up of memories from his childhood, so I understand how this is an important movie for Cuarón, but this was just going nowhere for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neight Shayde
1 hour ago, Oriane said:

Still, you stay for three hours in front of the screen waiting for the end to come. I think that cinema, literature, video games, even music are different in that sense from other forms of art. It's also a form of entertainment. You can make a painting beautiful, contemplative, really meaningful, aesthetically brilliant, I think it's the perfect medium for it. But a movie or a book, they have a definite length, you can't escape them (unless you press stop or leave the theatre but I make a point of always sticking until the end whether I like it or not). Entertainment is the other priority here, and it's easy to fall into your artistry or forgetting that you have to keep the public in mind, that you have to share your ideas with them. It's easy to fall in the other category too and make simple entertainment rather than art (unfortunately these movies are the most popular in theatres). It's more than possible to combine both, but it takes talent and work. Not that Alfonso Cuaron or Terrence Malick are not talented, but they kind of let themselves be impressed by the beauty of the shots and forgot about the rest.

But films never had a definite length until Hollywood decided that there was... because... you know... profit.

Directors of "Slow Cinema" have existed since the early 60s, with the likes of Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc. so it's not a fad or a new thing, and the fact that films with that kind of long run time are still being made and released today, only means that there will always be an audience for these, irregardless of how big or small that audience is. People like it, people want it. Their version of entertainment does not coincide with yours, and that's okay.

Auteurs have profited from their so-called "selfish" artistry since the early days of cinema without giving a single f*** about what the public wanted to see. If directors actually succumbed to public demands, Cinema today would be completely different. We wouldn't have Neorealism and The French New Wave, which broke boundaries and are both the primary inspiration for every. single. movie. released ever since those movements. We wouldn't have special effects, different camera movements, 4th wall breaks, different stories, documentaries, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oriane
2 hours ago, Didymus said:

Well, then it's just different goals of the artist and/or the public then imo. There's clearly an audience for their films, it might be a very small one, but it does exist and I don't see why directors can't make films for them :nick:

I also don't really agree with the talent/work thing. I don't really think that's appropriate. It's such a cliché that "artsy fartsy" things don't require a lot of work and are more spontaneous and I've never found it convincing. Not saying it takes more talent/work to make those movies, but I definitely don't think you can generalize and say it's an either/or situation.

Yes, I forgot to mention that in my other post, as long as there are some people who like it, good for them !

I think it depends. I saw "experimental" things that were... well... really lazy and pretentious. Some really have a deep thought behind them but I've seen so many just do something random and when asked about it they just said "nah, if you don't understand it I can't explain it like this, it's just so deep !". Not that Roma didn't require work though, on the technical side it's amazing. It just lacks substance for me, although the second half started to show what it could have been.

1 hour ago, BrothaGaga said:

But films never had a definite length until Hollywood decided that there was... because... you know... profit.

Directors of "Slow Cinema" have existed since the early 60s, with the likes of Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc. so it's not a fad or a new thing, and the fact that films with that kind of long run time are still being made and released today, only means that there will always be an audience for these, irregardless of how big or small that audience is. People like it, people want it. Their version of entertainment does not coincide with yours, and that's okay.

Auteurs have profited from their so-called "selfish" artistry since the early days of cinema without giving a single f*** about what the public wanted to see. If directors actually succumbed to public demands, Cinema today would be completely different. We wouldn't have Neorealism and The French New Wave, which broke boundaries and are both the primary inspiration for every. single. movie. released ever since those movements. We wouldn't have special effects, different camera movements, 4th wall breaks, different stories, documentaries, etc.

But no matter the length, even just a minute, it's still something definite that you have to watch until the end, so it had better catch your attention.

I think "Slow Cinema" has always existed anyway, just not in specific styles. The slowness isn't really the problem for me, more like the lack of action I suppose ? Not action as in car chases etc of course. For example I think that Bergman's movies are really captivating, from beginning to end. Tarkovsky on the other end...

I'm sure these genres influenced movies after, but not as much as huge movies that revolutionized cinema and already brought some major changes. A shame because we could use more diversity, but I see some influence from time to time.

You popped my heart seams, all my bubble dreams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neight Shayde
7 minutes ago, Oriane said:

But no matter the length, even just a minute, it's still something definite that you have to watch until the end, so it had better catch your attention.

I think "Slow Cinema" has always existed anyway, just not in specific styles. The slowness isn't really the problem for me, more like the lack of action I suppose ? Not action as in car chases etc of course. For example I think that Bergman's movies are really captivating, from beginning to end. Tarkovsky on the other end...

I'm sure these genres influenced movies after, but not as much as huge movies that revolutionized cinema and already brought some major changes. A shame because we could use more diversity, but I see some influence from time to time.

I wasn't putting Slow Cinema on the level of other more important movements, by the way. I was pointing out how falling into one's artistry can also be a very good thing, that's why I brought up Auteurs and how important it is to not give public preference that much thought over what films they should make.

It's completely up to preference now, I guess. I thought Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" was long and boring but I loved the rest of his films. Stalker is one of my all-time faves. I just watched two Lav Diaz films (known for a lot of static black and white shots; one is 4 hours long, the other is 8 hours long) and not once did I get bored. I took breaks, but I never felt detached from the story or even had a passing thought that it was annoyingly self-indulgent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oriane
14 minutes ago, BrothaGaga said:

I wasn't putting Slow Cinema on the level of other more important movements, by the way. I was pointing out how falling into one's artistry can also be a very good thing, that's why I brought up Auteurs and how important it is to not give public preference that much thought over what films they should make.

It's completely up to preference now, I guess. I thought Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" was long and boring but I loved the rest of his films. Stalker is one of my all-time faves. I just watched two Lav Diaz films (known for a lot of static black and white shots; one is 4 hours long, the other is 8 hours long) and not once did I get bored. I took breaks, but I never felt detached from the story or even had a passing thought that it was annoyingly self-indulgent.

Oh, okay. Yes, it's important for directors to do their own thing and not care so much about what the public thinks. On the other hand, I find it more interesting when artists find a way to do exactly what they want AND also manage to innovate and to leave a strong impression on the public. Looking back at it, I think it's also exactly these artists that we remember the most.

Yes, in a way it's fascinating how tastes can differ from one person to another. That's why I don't like the "if you liked this movie, you will like that one", you can never tell. I only watched "The Mirror" from Tarkovsky and didn't like it. Maybe I would like his other movies more, but that's the thing when you have a bad first experience with a director, you're kind of reluctant of giving them another chance, even if it just could be a lack of luck that this particular movie wasn't your taste. I don't think the length is an issue when you love what you're watching. In another vein, I love Abdellatif Kechiche's movies, which are longer than usual (although it doesn't come close to 8 hours !), because it just flows so naturally.

You popped my heart seams, all my bubble dreams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...